Ideology or Biology?

Re Anita

Anita, thanks for quoting all this wonderful poetry :). Despite my pen-name and the tone of my postings, I am with you visavis the pressures we have. I was focussing more on poor third world women who HAVE children AND work. Whether it`s taking care of other people`s children while their own mothers look after theirs; or working in the fields or working at home. I wasnt only talking about the pressures of being superwoman or supermom, which are, let`s face it very middle-class, professional women preoccupations (and I am one of those women). For a lot of women, middle class or otherwise, mother hood and work are not separate choices. They have to do both. My `beef` (a la Waqas) is with the assumption that what women do is not as valuable that they are not as committed, or as reliable as workers because they have all these other responsibilities.

Your point about contraception is an extremely important issue to bring to the table. Thanks.

Also, I think we both agree that for professional, and increasingly,working class or rural, or informal-sector working women, there is decreasing support from the family, the state, employers and other institutions for their roles as wives and mothers. There is a great deal of lip-service to family values, but the pro-lifers and the family value chaps are never around to change nappies and look after toddlers when their mothers go off to work. An increasing number of households all over the world are single parent, with women being the majority of those single parent. Waqas, if you want a reference I will be happy to provide one ;)

Re Tahnoon

Okay, the overlap between culture and biology - I`m in agreement.

And, okay you were talking about the supply and demand for home-making services. Well, isnt there a large supply because women are not given the education, the attitude, the resources to plan for and try for something else? If the world`s wives and mothers went on strike, we`d find out how that supply curve would shift (and we would see the `real` demand curve).

About the 70% poor - I dont believe that the entire populations of China and India are all counted as poor. Is that how you are trying to add up the beans? I am a little confused by your math...maybe i`ll have to read the damned report more closely.

I would agree with you about the UNDP, but their human development report is considered quite decent.

Some rhetoric of my own, in support of BG`s views:

Why should women not be able to lead adventurous, ambitious, pioneering lives - be on the quest path?
Why should women follow without question patriarchist rules defined by men to serve their own interests?
Why should women lead lives confined to household drudgery?
Why should women have to make a man the center of their lives?
Why should women not be able to make an impact in the public sphere of life?
Why should men have all the fun?

To quote some Hali

Jo ilm mardooN kay lieye samjha gaya aab-e-hayaat,
Thayra tumhare haq meiN woh zahr-e-halal sar basar

Aata hai waqt insaaf ka, nazdik hai yom-ul-hisaab,
duniya ko dena hoga in haq talfion ka waaN jawaab.

Duniya ke daana aur hakeem is khauf se larzaN thei sab,
Tum par mubada ilm ki par jaae parchhaaien kahiN

Aisa no ho mard aur aurat meiN rahe baqi na farq,
Taleem paa kar aadmi ban-na tujhe zeba nahiN


I firmly believe that if all women were ``allowed`` to get on the quest path, men would soon have trouble finding jobs that demand much more than manual labor! But since the work of reproduction is on the woman`s shoulders, as things stand right now, this isn`t happening any time soon. Until fertility choices are available to poor women. Note that I say work of reproduction only - not the work of child rearing which can be shared. This is very much a class issue. Us ``previleged`` women can exercise control over our biology, have a couple of kids, hire an ayah, join the quest path, at least THEORETICALLY. Poor women have to do everything - child bearing, child rearing, child burying (our IMR is 120/1000). A unique blend of socio-biology!


Now for some reality (as opposed to theroy) as applies to me, a woman on the quest path:

I grew up believing everything was possible - in a family of 5 daughters, we were proud to have no brother, to be the all-achieving female family! I married an incredibly supportive man who believes in all my ideals. But as I get older, I realize that I can`t do all that I want to, I have to compromise to biology, because I have a family - that most important job of all - that of being a MOTHER. My mind wants me to take this job that I`ve always wanted - to be responible for chasing and controlling infectious outbreaks all over the globe - but my heart tells me I belong right here, next to my daughter. Talk to any mother and she`ll tell you the same thing.

Debora Garrison, senior editor at New Yorker sums up the dilemma best:

Worked late on a Tuesday Night

Again.
Midtown is blasted out and silent,
drained of the crowd and its doggy day.
I trample the scraps of deli lunches
some ate outdoors as they stared dumbly
or hooted at us career girls-the haggard
beauties, the vivid can-dos, open raincoats aflap
in the March wind as we crossed to and fro
in front of the Public Library

Never thought you`d be one of them,
did you, little lady?
Little Miss Phi Beta Kappa,
with your closetful of pleated
skirts, twenty-nine till death do us
part! Don`t you see?
The good schoolgirl turns thirty,
forty, singing the song of time management
all day long, lugging the brief case

home. So at 10PM
you`re standing here
with your hand in the air,
cold but too stubborn to reach
into your pocket for a glove, cursing
the freezing rain as though it were
your difficuly. Its pathetic,
and nobody`s fault but
your own. Now

the tears,
down into the collar.
Cabs, cabs, but none for hire.
I haven`t had dinner; I`m not half
of what I meant to be.
Among other things, the mother
of three. Too tired, tonight,
to seduce the father.

From: A Working Girl Can`t Win

Hi BG,

It is absolutely great to be back, and thanks for the welcome.

OK in defence of the two points...-ish.

1.Culture is a function of environment, available resources and human interaction. The last is self evident, but the penultimate driver of environmental impact and resource requirements will be biological. The reason, we and not chickens evolved into the dominant species. So..yes, I maintain that biology drives culture and social structure. We have moved beyond the immediate imperatives by altering ourselves, albeit chemically and temporarily from the biological norm.

2. The market does not determine value independently of ideology since ideology would be intrinsic to utility. Thats not what I`m saying.
Neither is the issue one of scarcity of women, but the relative abundance of the services that home-makers provide and the willingness of women to do them without recompense. I agree entirely that economic value is not a necessary measure of human worth, but I thought we were talking about inequity in the context of economic value. I may be mistaken, its not easy trying to deal with a new puppy! :-)

A final thought.... I read somewhere that 60% of the world lives in poverty. This is the weak link, it could be higher. Anyway, by definition on per capita numbers South Asia and China with about 40% of the worlds population fall into this category. The gender differential in either is less than 5%. So..45% of 66% of all the impecunious are male. This means, that everywhere else in the world all the poor people have to be women or pretty close, for the UNDP numbers to make sense. Methinks the rest of us break wind while the UNDP writes reports.

I agree with the idea. There are certainly more poor women than men, but as an inveterate bean counter I`m unhappy with the absolute number. :-)

On the underlying idea, I have a final point to make. There ain`t no such thing as a free lunch. It is indeed perfectly acceptable for a woman to wish not to have children. To wish to do so absent any social costs strikes me as a little much. (Our mutual friend should be able to explain where I`m coming from in more detail if you`re interested).

Tahnoon.

Re An Honest Commnet

How do you know that my rhetoric, theory and practice are in conflict with each other? You are not making your own accusation stronger by quoting Anita Zaidi.

Anita raised a valid issue. It is a hard choice that many women have to make, but it doesnt take away from my argument. Anita has a child and she is working. Her employers, or the `system` or the way work is structured does not accomodate her needs and shows a lack of commitment to family and children. She is not less capable of being a doctor just because she is a wife and a mother. How does that contradict what I said?

Re Waqas

Hey, there, Waqas, lets have some consistency ;) first you totally dismiss my article by implying its incoherent and that I dont have sources to back up my assertions, then you say, your `real beef` was something else. What`s up with that :)

Anyway, for clarification, I was NOT suggesting that overtly ideological reasons like religion and culture do not play a part in the subjugation of women. That is quite clear. The thing about ideological reasons like religious and cultural ones, is that they are not universal across the world. So, the so-called shariah law of one man equals two women for evidence; or the practice of dowry are not applied in every society - thank God - because non-Muslim, non-South Asian societies do not have to lead their lives according to our culture and beliefs. Other societies` ideological bases for treating any of its citizens - women, minorities, etc. - can be challenged internally or extrenally on the same basis.

The problem with biological arguments is that they come with a cloak of neutrality and universality.
women = wombs = mothers = caregivers = secondary workers = economic subordination to men (`primary workers`) = social subordination.

The problem is that if you believe women = wombs = mothers = caregivers for ALL WOMEN, then it is hard to argue the rest away. I am arguing that all these assertions can be challenged, even the one that all women are mothers and have to be the primary caregivers. I am saying that all women do not have to have children. And if many of them do, they do not have to be the sole caregivers. And even if they are, it doesnt mean that they cannot or do not work. So, the assertion that women = (yadayadayada) `secondary` workers is not a biological fact, it is an ideology a point of view, a social myth to explain women`s lack of power in society.

Because it is not a biological fact, only a point of view, it can also be challenged. And that is what I was attempting to do by giving out all that information about women and work.

I was also challenging the assertion that work = economic empowerment = social status by saying that a lot of those who have social status and power - the rich have no need to work. So, life is not as simple as `work and you will rise in society`. Some of the poorest people in the world, subsistence farmers or informal workers, slog for hours just to make ends meet. If they had access trust funds or to social resources like a good education, well-connected friends and relatives, then they wouldnt have to work so hard. Anyway, I dont want to go on too long over this.

I agree that all the issues you raised in your subsequent post are worth exploring, but I think the relationship between women and work needs to looked at also. Economic empowerment is essential to social empowerment, but I agree with Saima, it is not the only thing.

Now for some statistics: the UNDP and ILO report that 70% of the world`s poor are women. I dont know how they conceptualize it, but whatever it is, whether those living on less than a $1 a day or some other measure, the biggest chunk of them are women. (Human development report, UNDP, New York 1997)

Here are some other figures:

- ``in developed countries, women work at least two hours per week more than men and often 5-20 hours per week more. In developing countries, women spend 31-42 hours per week in unpaid work, while men spend between 5-15 hours in such work.``

- ``Everyehwere, women are paid less than men. The majority of women continue to earn on average about 3/4 of the male wage outside of the agricultural sector. ``
(``World of Work``, No.17 ILO, Geneva 1996)
(I quote these, despite my cynicism of averages)

``If...unpaid, invisible work by women in subsistence..and if the household duties were calculated...the participation rate of women would be equal or superior to that of men.``
(ILO, Geneva, press kit: ``All Women are Working - Remuneration for women`s work: a curious paradox)

RE Saima
Saima, I dont know which question you were confused by, but I suspect you answered the main one by saying that misogyny, no matter how it is displayed, stems from a fear or women`s bodies and power. Can we have some other thoughts on that, maybe from the men?

Re Tahnoon

Welcome back!!

Tahnoon, you seem to have gotten it (despite all this noise about, they just dont!). And I agree with most of what you say, but not that:

1. ``cultural and social structure are premised on biology`` Is that always the case? Obvious biological differences may be used to argue for differences that do not truly exist. For instance, arguing that black people are mentally inferior just because they are black. I certainly dont agree that skin color has anything to do with mental ability!

2. ``ground rules of the existing framework unfortunately and based on the idea of value being defined by supply and demand of scarce resources``
That`s a fairly narrow view of things, I mean the supply and demand theory. Are you implying that men are more scarce? In South Asia, contrary to the rest of the world (not sure about China), the female to male ratio is lower and decreasing. Therefore, in South Asia, women should be valued more? I was suggesting that there is something about the definition of `value` that is not quite what it seems. Correct me if I am wrong, but you are saying the market defines value, without interference from ideological factors?

Finally, something on feminism worth talking about. OK, here goes...

Synic,
Somewhere in Sura` Nisa is a bit about how one should beat women if they choose to deny the inherent superiority of men. Some will choose to tell you that this implies physical size alone. IMHO either is irrelevant to the morality of worshipping something that condones violence in the home. Incidentally should one worship at the altar of a deity that would require someone to murder their child?

p.s. I think you might enjoy the Hyperion series by Robin Hobb, if you haven`t read it already.

Saima,
Whaddya know! That volte face must have gotten a few old feminists spinning in their proverbials! :-)
I agree entirely, it is progress which liberates people regardless of gender. However, I must take issue with a statement of yours: Reality is mutually agreed perception, fine. The emphasis is on the ``mutually agreed`` bit. Evidence becomes rather pertinent in securing agreement. If you tell me that the sky is purple with yellow polka dots, I shan`t believe you notwithstanding your privilege in holding said view. I think everyone is going a little over the top in dumping on Waqas. He raises legitimate queries on a topic he clearly feels strongly about. I didn`t read all of the last article so I couldn`t say wether or not what was written there was unfair.

BG
For fifty thousand odd years, during h-g and agrarian phases of the human experience, menstruation and childbirth were a liability, as was a smaller size. Domination of one gender by the other was hard wired into the race`s psyche. Earlier posts suggest you won`t disagree with the idea of an occasionally irrational and selfish species. So, thats where it comes from.
as you pointed out, this is changing already. I expect that as employment becomes even less dependent on location or manual labour, the cost and down time of limited physical mobility will fall. Simulataneously, substitutes for home making will become more readily available. I agree with Anita on the significant implications of the ``pill``. (Women with thick ankles, please note, you`re not ugly, its a mark of freedom!:-) ) Lets not forget the virtues of the microwave oven and the vacuum cleaner, though.
Without any inference on your sources, I too would like to know however about the 2/3rds of the impecunious who are women. How does one measure that? It isn`t conceptually self-evident.

Anyway, to respond to the implied queries in the article, it was predominantly biological with a flavouring of ``laissez faire``. It is more ideological now, but the front line is crumbling.
After all, culture and social structure are premised on biology. Within the ground rules of the existing framework unfortunately and based on the idea of value being defined by supply and demand of scarce resources, women ARE less valuable. (I appreciate that this is utterly iterative). So are ugly people, South Asians, and lepers.

The point is that ultimately this is not a legalistic question within the confines of where we are, but a practical one as to wether the culture needs changing.

On that you get a heartfelt YES from me.

Any typo`s are due to a cocker spaniel puppy asleep on my lap, because my other dog can`t quite figure her out. Say ``Hi`` to Estelle folks. :-)

Tahnoon.

BG, your article was tremendously interesting. I disagree with Waqas Khan that the only way Pakistan will progress is we liberate the women. The statement is frought with paradoxes. Firstly the desire for liberty is a natural state of mind, which society in its urge to `progress` has made almost impossible to do. It is in any case completely just for women to have as many rights as men. I would go so far as to say that liberty has no `moral`justification other than the sheer fun of being free.

Many countries who are as antiquated about women as we are. e.g., Japan have `progressed` very well. Money comes to those who work and save!and not only to those who think that women are cool.

`We` cannot liberate the women. Women have to want it too. They have to believe that they are free, worth it and not pieces of flesh who have to protect against being damaged for future consumption.

There is a horrible chain that is wound tightly around a woman from the time she is born. That chain is called `sharam`. Sharam effectively means that a woman can`t cry rape because of what people will think of HER morality if they hear her. (Was she encouraging him somehow?)

Women walk around in urban cities, educated, people and are scared of calling attention to themselves if someone mistreats them sexually. Why? Becuse people may think they are somehow dirty or bad. The famous `log kiya kahen gey`.

I whole-heartedly agree with BG that women work harder than men in the Third World. I don`t need statistics (of-course that would be an added verification), just looking at myself and the world around me is enough.

In the end the question you ask is indeed baffling. I am tempted to agree with Wasiq Bokhari`s view that it is the various religions in the sub-continent plus a hangover of an agrarian society that gave us this mix of mediocre values. I think, though that religion(s) is used as a mechanism to validate these values and tend to agree with certain psychologists that the underlying reason is a deep fear and suspicion of female body functions/sexuality. It was probably viewed as supernatural and scary that one human prototype was so different. Ignorance bred immense mistrust.

I again disagree about BG`s article being a stream of concsiousness therefore rendered ineffective somehow. What else is out there other than consciousness? ( Reality is just a mutually agreed perception). Scientific rationality is a tool to transalate that into paradigms and laws (empiricism). The first step is speculative, especially in the social sciences.

I also don`t think that we need to show our degrees everytime we present a point of view. Let the view stand on its own. Why should the academic validation of some University bias one`s independent reaction to a thought? Isn`t debate about ideas and not people?

Re Waqas

Waqas, since I was not writing an `academic` piece, I did not put in my references. Incidentally, I did my masters` thesis on this topic, so I can back up most of what I have said with references. They just need to be dug up. If you would just give me the time to fetch them and post them.

I must say, though, that instead of asking me what my sources are, you just assume that I have none and I am making it all up. (Please see my response to you in Adil Najam`s article on funding lower education)

Hmm ... I Shot Andy Warhol???

Nice article- important issue discussed with loosely constructed arguments.

How many children did these great women have?

1. Ismat chughtai
2. Dr Noor Jehan Bilgrami
3. Begum Shaista Ikramullah
4. Quratulain Haider
5. Noor-ul Hudda Shah

... And what about women in the military?

Go girls, GO!

Re Anita Zaidi

Good point, Anita. Thank you for pointing out that biological differences between men and women are very significant. I dont mean to deny biological differences that affect women and their participation in society. My main point is that despite these differences, it is a statistical fact that women work, many longer hours than men (when one includes housework and work in the formal economy)but their status does not reflect their contributions to society. Status in society has more to do with the power to define what `work` is, how it is to be rewarded and not only based on how many hours a day a person can or does work.

Bad Girl:

A few comments.
Until women have universal unfettered access to contraception, they will remain wedded to their biology for 25-30 years of their lives. Anyone who has ever been pregnant knows what a physically and emotionally exhausting experience it is - and a woman who is pregnant every one to two years in this time period - as most women in the world are, cannot have her work measured in economic terms. Therefore, she is socioeconomically weaker - but because of her biology!
On the other hand, women who can ``control`` their biology have the potential to not just equal, but exceed men in the marketplace of ideas and make immense public and private contributions outside the home to society as a whole. But this is a tough choice. Since you call yourself ``girl`` I am assuming (I apologise,if incorrectly) that you are a fairly young person and have not yet started feeling the pressure of your biological clock`s ticking. For me, a woman in her mid-thirties who has been postponing for ever, having another child, because it will ``conflict`` with my extremely intense and competitive work environment, this is an agonizing choice that I have had to make - perhaps the wrong one!

Thank you, Synic, for the wonderful quotations. I alluded to the Islamic patriarchal vision, without qualifying that it is one vision that has been stressed. As you have shown, we can stress other verses in the Quran that support equality between men and women.